George Black's teleconference on video replay

http://www.cfl.ca/audio/06_cfl_georgeblack.mp3

Its interesting!

Can anyone post a transcript for me? I got dial up and it doesn't let me listen.

Transcript....Its long!

Very interesting. I had a few questions answered by this link.

Although some fans will never be satisfied no matter what the league says!

It's half an hour long..

Key bits ferom Wpg-Mtl game.

Watkins' catch was ruled a no-catch because it was determined he didn't have possession long enough.

As for Hebert INT, Hebert made INT in the air and when he came down and landed on field, both he and Als' receiver (Watkins agin?) were determined to have possesion. Simultaneous possession goes to receiver.

That chalklenge was allowed because play started before 3 min warning given.

He agreed they need to clarify wording in such cases to make sure when they say "in the last three mins of a game" it really means once 3 min warning given.
lack also said he was royally ticked about comments from CBC panel with regards to any suggestion that officials had it in for one coach or team.

He reiterated that they have extensive grading/review system for all officials.

Hasn't reviewed all game tape so couldn't answer question about Quinn hit and whether it should have been penalty.

Once again he said purprose of IR is not to officiate the game. It's only an extra tool available to officials

i promised i wouldn't write any more about the officiating, but after hearing the first 2 minutes of Black's telecon, i was stunned! i couldn't even listen to the rest!

he said that upon further review, Watkins didn't have control of the ball for it to be ruled at td, therefore it was ruled incomplete. Bullshit - he had the ball, came down with it, landed on the ground with control and while he was down, it was stripped out. td all the way! one can only surmise that the back official in the end zone was "screened" by the bomber player, so he didn't see Watkins gain possession, but the replay clearly shows this! TD Als - at least it should've been. Plus, he was already down by contact w the ground.

next he said that the Hebert int was a simultaneuous catch! Bullshit - Hebert had the ball first, came down with it with Watkins trying to strip the ball away from him. Hebert had both hands on the ball clutching the ball in his upper body. They fell to the ground and Watkins tried his best to gain possession from Hebert. OK - i can live with a simultaneous catch w/o a replay, but the replay clearly shows that Hebert caught the ball first and had possession and then Watkins came in trying to strip the ball or hope to get a "simultaneous" catch ruling. He's laffing all the way to the bench on that one!

If no one admits there is a problem with officiating, it wont get better. i don't know what was said in the rest of the interview - so if there was anything enlightening said by Black, i'm sure my fellow cfl fans will set me straight!

.... And i promise, no more mention of the officials unless i'm responding to this thread! i realize that they're human, and that's the whole point of IR, but to see it clear as day and still get it wrong, that's frustrating. Do they get to see all the angles we see on TV?

Existing thread on this

[url=http://www.cfl.ca/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=8263]http://www.cfl.ca/index.php?name=PNphpB ... pic&t=8263[/url]

I was cheering for montreal. I am not a ref. I am not related to any ref. I dont know any ref. I too felt when I saw the play that the receiver did not have control LONG ENOUGH. It looks like he did in slow mo replay because…well…it is SLOW MO REPLAY. In my opinion, there is justification for any given ref to also beleive as I did, even if it is an error. It is not beyond doubt.

am i being an overzealous fan then? u look at wen a back breaks the plane or a receiver catches a ball in the end zone and spikes it with only a "1 steamboat" count, if that! even in slo mo, i thot he had possession, it looked like he MAY have been juggling the ball, but he came down with it, gained possesion before the ball ever touched the ground and while he was on the ground, the bomber db came and stripped it. wasn't there a similar catch by Edwards in the end zone? he was juggling the ball, but came down w it before the ball hit the ground - while he was on the ground! that was a td!

probably, a case of DIFFERENT REF - DIFFERENT JUDGEMENT. I know this isnt the rule but, in my opinion, the owness should be on the player to maintain possession until the whistle blows to end the play. I dont like the ground-cant-make-you-fumble type of crap. Quite simply, the receiver should not have allowed the db to strip him of the ball period.

There is no rule saying "the ground-cant-make-you-fumble"!

This is right. Think of it this way: a wide open receiver jumps up to make a catch, he grabs the ball, squeezes it and then he hits the ground which causes the ball to pop out. What is the ruling? Incomplete! Possession of the ball is not confirmed until the player touches the ground.

In the PegMtl cause possions was when the player touched the ground, not on the initial contact with the ball during the jump to it.

Shank, I am neither a Winnipeg or Montreal fan. But after listening to the entire tape (Yes all 30 minutes) I understand how the ruling was made and why it was made, and I am satisfied with the explanation. It makes sense! The officials followed the guidelines / parameters set down by the league and the leagues rules commitee. (The rules commitee is made up from one representative from each team!)

Time to relax.....Let it go.... Next game Thursday.